The purpose of
this site is for information and a record of Gerry McCann's Blog
Archives. As most people will appreciate GM deleted all past blogs
from the official website. Hopefully this Archive will be helpful to
anyone who is interested in Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann. Many
Thanks, Pamalam

Note: This site does not belong to the McCanns. It belongs to Pamalam. If
you wish to contact the McCanns directly, please use
the contact/email details
campaign@findmadeleine.com

The official launch of 'Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone
Unturned Limited' on 16 May 2007 Walkers Stadium

Enid O'Dowd takes an in depth look into the
setting up and subsequent running of Madeleine's
Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

Exclusive to mccannfiles.com

A review of the background
to setting up the limited company
Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone
Unturned and a forensic examination
of the company accounts, 20 February
2012

A review of the background to
setting up the limited company
Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone
Unturned and a forensic examination of
the company accounts

by Enid O'Dowd FCA

The case of missing Madeleine McCann
is unlike any other missing person
case. Her parents Kate and Gerry
McCann set up a limited company
(Madeleine's Fund) less than two
weeks after she went missing, and
engaged many, mainly legal,
professionals, to further their
search for her.

This article looks at the history of
the Fund, what the audited accounts
reveal and the professionals
engaged, using material from the
book Madeleine and from
independent sources.

Madeleine was reported missing by
her parents Kate and Gerry McCann on
the evening of Thursday May 3, 2007.
On 15 May, just 11 full days later,
the limited company Madeleine's
Fund: leaving No Stone Unturned
was incorporated.

The sad truth is that such Funds,
Foundations or whatever one chooses
to call them are normally set up
after a tragic event as a tribute to
the person's memory. Amy Winehouse's
father has set up a Foundation to
provide support and counselling to
those seeking help with drink and
drug addictions. In October 2002 at
the memorial service of murdered
teenager Milly Dowler, her parents
announced Milly's Fund. This fund
was later subsumed into the Suzy
Lamplugh Trust set up in 1986 by the
parents of missing estate agent Suzy
Lamplugh, whose body has never been
found. In 2003, Australian teenager
Daniel Morcombe went missing. Two
years later, his parents set up a
Foundation to continue the search
and to educate the public. Daniel's
remains were found late last year
and a man has been charged with his
murder.

The book informs us that the limited
company arose out of an offer to
help 'from a paralegal based in
Leicester, via a colleague of
Gerry's.' This man worked for the
International Family Law Group (IFLG),
a firm based in central London.

Kate says 'it was difficult to know
what they could do (and anyone in
her position would agree) but we
decided it would be worth meeting
them to discuss the possibilities.'
The paralegal accompanied by an
unnamed barrister flew to Portugal
on the afternoon of Friday May 11.
They met that day and had two
further sessions with the lawyers
over the course of the weekend.

We are told that the barrister,
having inspected the proximity of
the Tapas bar to their holiday
apartment, assured them that their
behaviour (in making periodic checks
on their children) could not be
deemed negligent and was 'well
within the bounds of reasonable
parenting.' The lawyers also advised
about applying to have Madeleine
made a ward of court, such status
being helpful as the 'courts could
make orders to reveal information
not otherwise available that might
be relevant in our case.'

In the context of the financial help
that was then being offered, Kate
says the IFLG paralegal advised them
to set up a 'fighting fund'. The
IFLG would devise the objectives of
the fund and instruct a leading
charity law firm Bates Wells
Braithwaite (BWB) to draw up
Articles of Association. The use of
the term 'fighting' is odd. Who were
the McCanns fighting? Whether
'fighting' is the paralegal's word
or Kate's paraphrase is unclear.

It is perhaps strange that the IFLG
paralegal, expert in the complex
area of international family
abductions, would promote the idea
of setting up a limited company so
convincingly that the McCanns
agreed. At the time of the first
meeting between the McCanns and the
two legal visitors, Madeleine had
been missing for only one week.

And, most significantly, Kate says
on p.296 of Chapter 19 entitled
'Action on three fronts' writing
about the time period autumn 2007,
'gradually my outlook was growing
more positive and I was beginning to
get past my early certainty that
Madeleine must have been taken by a
paedophile and murdered.'

If Kate believed that her daughter
had been murdered at the time of
meeting the legal pair, why would
she agree to setting up a Fund to
find Madeleine?

Further, in Chapter 19 she tells us,
'by October...we were able to
concentrate on our top priority:
finding Madeleine...so far beyond
following up the odd piece of
information outside Portugal, we had
not gone down this road...we had
been reassured that after a shaky
start, the police were doing
everything that could be done.'

So if the Fund, set up in record
time and presumably at considerable
expense, was to find Madeleine, why
did it, as Kate herself tells us, do
very little for the first four
months of its existence other than
to collect money and follow up the
odd piece of information outside
Portugal?

Interestingly the book doesn't
mention the names of the paralegal
and the barrister who spent the
weekend in Portugal to advise them,
presumably at their own expense. Her
book names and praises other
professionals who helped her at
different times after her daughter
vanished; for example trauma
psychologist Alan Pike and Carter-Ruck
lawyers Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson
who she says on p.289 'continue to
do a vast amount of work for us,
most of it without payment, most of
it quietly behind the scenes.'

On Sunday May 13 the IFLG issued a
press brief release with Ann Thomas,
managing partner as the contact
person. It merely said that 'last
week' they and barrister Michael
Nicholls QC had been instructed to
act for the McCanns...and that
details of how contributions could
be made to help get Madeleine back
would be made available 'in the next
couple of days.'

Presumably then, Mr Nicholls was the
barrister who reassured the McCanns
about their 'reasonable' parenting.
According to the website maintained
by his Chambers his principal areas
of practice are:

'International and domestic
family law and medical ethics,
including jurisdiction, recognition
and enforcement, conflicts of law,
child abduction, international
relocation, private childrens
cases, contempts, families and the
media (freedom of expression and
press injunctions) and disputes
about medical treatment.'

It is unclear why his particular
expertise warranted instruction in a
missing child case where there was
no issue of family abduction. Apart
from his family law experience he
also had expertise in media (freedom
of expression and press injunctions)
but at that time the media was
totally supportive of the McCanns.

The press release announcing the
appointment of the IFLG contained
four names each with a title, one of
which was Richard Jones Family Law
Executive. Perhaps he is the
persuasive paralegal at the Portugal
meetings? Mr Jones is not currently
included as a staff member of IFLG
on their website.

The IFLG was apparently set up not
long before Madeleine went missing.
The website does not say when.
However, since co-founder David
Hodson was, according to his website
career details working in Sydney
until 2005, the IFLG cannot have
been founded until 2005 at the
earliest.

BWB could not have been contacted
before Monday morning May 14 when
their offices opened  they had the
company incorporated on Tuesday May
15.

A Freedom of Information (FOI)
request to the Charity Commission
revealed several emails, telephone
calls and a telephone conference
between BWB and the Charity
Commission about the possibility of
charity status, for the then
unincorporated company, between
Monday afternoon May 14 and Tuesday
May 15.

BWB emailed Alice Holt, Head of
Legal Services (Status and Advice)
at 9.39 pm on Monday evening with
draft documents for the company as a
charity. The email stated there was
to be a press launch of the
Foundation on Wednesday May 16 and
that they awaited instructions on
how the founders proposed to
operate.

The minutes of the telephone
conference held between BWB and the
Charity Commission on the morning of
Tuesday May 15 record that Alice
Holt would look at revising the
draft document to a form more
acceptable to the Commission. The
minutes also record that Commission
official Kenneth Dibble was
concerned that the press conference
set for the next day might send out
confused messages to the public
unless it was settled what the fund
could and could not be used for.

At 1.10 pm on May 15 the Charity
Commission received an email from
BWB saying their clients were likely
to go the ordinary company route
rather than pursue charity status.
When that email was received Ms Holt
was just finalising her promised
revisions to the documents submitted
to her the previous day. She sent
her revised document anyway at 1.28
pm. To meet the Fund launch date of
May 16, the McCanns had obviously
decided to abandon the apparently
hopeful charity negotiations in
order to meet the deadline for same
day company incorporation. Documents
must be filed by 3pm for the company
to be incorporated on that day.

It is odd that the McCanns committed
themselves to a launch date, set it
would appear, before
BWB were engaged. In an email to the
Charity Commission, BWB refer to
being instructed 'this afternoon'
(i.e. Monday May 14). What
difference would a couple of days
delay have made? And it is clear
from the documentation that the
Charity Commission officials were
helpful, and that it was likely that
charity status could have been
obtained with only minor delay with
a little compromise by the McCanns.

Charity status is valuable because
it gives an organisation credibility
with the public, grant making bodies
and local government, making it
easier to obtain funds. It also
gives the organisation tax
advantages. Individuals, sole
traders and companies can also
benefit from giving to registered
charities. Higher rate tax payers
may be able to claim a tax refund.
Under the Gift Aid scheme a donation
is treated as if standard rate tax
(20%) has been deducted and this is
equivalent to an extra 25p in the £
for the charity. For donations
between 6.4.2008 and 5.4.2011 the
government gave an extra 3p in the £
supplement. Individuals can also
have charitable donations deducted
from their salaries, and this is tax
efficient as their income tax is
calculated on their salary after
the donation. See
www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities-donors/
for more information on the benefits
to an organisation of charity
status.

Charities must give an annual report
and accounts to the Charity
Commission and make these documents
available to the public on request.
There are also rules relating to
fundraising. The trustees
(directors) cannot normally receive
salary, fees or contracts from the
charity and nor can their spouses or
other close family members. These
requirements are not onerous or
unreasonable. Having hired charity
experts BWB on the advice of the
paralegal, it is surprising that
Kate did not let them have a day or
two more to explore charity status.
And it is surprising that the
McCanns have not apparently
revisited this issue.

In Chapter 9 in which Kate describes
her activities of May 14 she does
not mention any dealings with BWB
who must have worked very hard that
day. Nor does she mention dealing
with the paralegal or anyone else at
IFLG. There must have been urgent
emails and phone calls that day from
her advisors. She just states that
charity status would not be
forthcoming as it was deemed that
the 'public benefit' test would not
be met, and adds that it (the Fund)
'was set up with great care and due
diligence by experts in their
field.'

It would be more accurate to state
it was set up with great haste and
with no apparent reason for that
haste.

Rather than going into detail about
the busy day she must have had
dealing with her lawyers, and why
she made the decision to proceed
with incorporation and abandon the
negotiations for charity status, she
talks of going for a run, her first
since Madeleine went missing!

She mentions trying to focus on the
imminent launch of Madeleine's fund
but doesn't say when it was to be or
explain why a limited company was
required. A press launch can be
called at short notice and given the
high profile of the case at that
time; it would have got a good media
turnout however short the notice
was. And again, it probably would
not have been a problem to get
another celebrity at short notice if
the one booked to launch the Fund on
May 16, Martin Johnson the rugby
player, could not meet a rescheduled
date.

And after they incorporated the
company in 24 hours, BWB applied for
British and European trade marks on
18 May 2007 and was given the
reference 2456061. These trademarks
protected fundraising, internet and
print promotions. Again this action
was unprecedented at this very early
stage in a missing person case.

Review of the Memorandum of
Association and Articles of
Association filed in May 2007
reveals in 3.1.3 that one of the
three objects of the company is to
provide support, including financial
assistance to Madeleine's family
(my italics). Now this could mean
uncles, aunts, parents and any blood
relations.

This object was not included in the
draft submitted to the Charity
Commission on May 14. In fact the
draft objects were different to the
ones actually used for the company
as incorporated. The objects in the
draft were general, relating to
missing persons and the education of
the public and the promotion of
sound administration of the law. An
accompanying note from BWB headed
'proposed activities' did state that
initially practically all the
donations received would be used for
the search for Madeleine, and that
substantial funds would not be
forthcoming if donations were not
restricted in the first instance to
her.

The objects of the company as
incorporated are specific to
Madeleine McCann, with a final
object to pursue other cases when
the objects relating to her case are
fulfilled.

5.2.1 permits payments to directors
as beneficiaries and 5.2.4 permits
payment of rent where appropriate to
directors for premises. Therefore,
if the McCanns or family members
used a room in their home to work
for the Fund, the payment of rent
from the Fund would be permitted if
they should want it and the Board
agreed.

The quorum for Board meetings is one
third of the current Board
membership. This makes the current
quorum two, as there are now six
directors. Three directors are
family members. The Chairman has a
casting vote. John McCann was
Chairman until he resigned in July
2010. It is unclear who the current
Chairman is. If Brian Kennedy (Kate
McCann's uncle) - who was one of the
original directors - took over as
Chairman, then the McCann family has
a majority at board meetings by
virtue of the Chairman's casting
vote.

The conflict of interest policy
(Articles nos 37 and 38) is
interesting.

It says (37.1) that directors with a
personal interest in an upcoming
vote must declare that interest, and
(37.2) withdraw from the relevant
part of the meeting, and (37.3) not
be counted in the quorum for that
part of the meeting relating to
their personal interest and (37.4)
have no vote on the issue affecting
them. That is proper governance.

However no 38 states that 'no
director shall be regarded as having
a conflict of interest solely
because he or she is also eligible
to receive the support of the
Foundation.'

A reasonable person would conclude
there is a clear conflict of
interest for a family member
director if decisions are to be
taken on payments of legal fees,
rent for part of his/her private
house for use as an 'office', and
other costs not directly related to
the search for Madeleine. The draft
documents sent to the Charity
Commission only contained no.37 so
had those documents been adopted,
the McCanns and family members would
not have been able to attend or vote
on issues regarding certain proposed
payments to themselves.

Interestingly a revised Memorandum
and Articles of Association was
filed in Companies House in December
2011. This deleted the object to
provide support including financial
assistance to Madeleine's family.
This particular object had attracted
unfavourable comment in particular
from internet bloggers. The motive
for deleting this objective more
than four years later is unclear. If
the Board felt this minority
criticism of the object was
adversely affecting fundraising, it
would presumably have changed it
earlier.

On p.138 Kate says there needed to
be independent people on the Board
as well as John McCann, who is
Gerry's brother, and her uncle Brian
Kennedy, and at that time she had no
idea how important these independent
people would be when later there was
'massive scrutiny' of the Fund.

The composition of the Board varied
during the first year. At the most
there were nine directors meaning
the quorum was three. Two were
family members; three were friends 
Esther McVey, Jon Corner and Dr
Peter Hubner. It is not known
whether Michael Linnett, a retired
accountant based in Leicester or P J
Tomlinson (who resigned on
28.12.2007) were friends of the
McCanns. Friends can of course be
very independent, but the optics of
having a majority of family and
friends on the Board is not
desirable. Gerry and Kate became
directors on November 12, 2008.
Board numbers were reduced to six,
following the resignations of Dr
Hubner, Dr Skehan and John McCann in
2010.

Returning to the decision to set up
a limited company, nowhere does Kate
mention the more logical option of
dealing with the donations coming in
 to open a new bank account in
Madeleine's name, or in the joint
names of Madeleine and herself. Such
an account could, if desired, have
two signatures, her own and an
independent signatory such as a
solicitor or an accountant.

This could have been done quickly at
no cost. Down the line, when the
situation was clearer, another
structure could have been
considered.

In fact it is likely there already
was a deposit account in Madeleine's
name as many parents open up an
account in their child's name as a
place for depositing gifts from
family and friends, and later to
encourage the saving of pocket
money. In addition, the Child Trust
Fund scheme, introduced in September
2002 by the government and which
provided a small amount to kick
start these special accounts, could
also mean there was an existing bank
account in Madeleine's name.

Perhaps, the McCanns, who at the
time of the meetings with the
lawyers, must have been very
distressed, meekly accepted the
advice of the persuasive paralegal,
and gave him the go-ahead. But the
McCanns are clearly intelligent
professionals and even given the sad
situation, it is hard to understand
why they accepted the advice.

The cost of getting a top legal firm
to set up a limited company would
surely have been of concern to them
as the donations coming in were for
finding Madeleine and not for
lawyers. The legal pair would
presumably have informed them of the
ongoing compliance costs of
operating a limited company such as
the audit fee. The audit fees for
the four years for which accounts
are available total £31,585. You
would have expected some comment
from Kate in Chapter 9 after the
lawyers had left, wondering if she
was doing the right thing in
spending the public's donations to
set up a limited company.

The money already coming in would
have been in cash, or cheques made
out to the McCanns so there would
have been no problem using the money
to fund the search. By May 17 a bank
account in the company name was open
and, most surprisingly, auditors to
the company had been appointed.

The Charity Commission in its FOI
reply supplied a printout of the
official Madeleine website (http://www.findmadeleine.com/)
at 17 May 2007 giving information on
the Fund including auditor details.
Now the directors of a company
appoint the auditors. At that date
there were three directors, two
family members John McCann and Brian
Kennedy, and Gerry McCann's
immediate boss Dr Doug Skehan. It is
quite possible that IFLG or BWB
recommended these auditors to the
directors but that does not explain
the rush to appoint them. It is
normal for a company to meet with
proposed auditors to agree exactly
what they are to do (sometimes
auditors may provide other services
to the company), to agree fees and
to draw up a letter of engagement.
It is very unlikely in the time that
any meeting with the auditors took
place. The first meeting of the
board according to Kate was due
sometime in the week beginning May
20 which would appear to be the
earliest time this non urgent matter
could have been discussed.

The auditors appointed were
haysmacintyre in London WC1, a 24
partner firm with 150 staff. It is
perhaps surprising that the McCanns
did not choose a local firm. It is
usually more convenient to have a
local firm and can be cheaper as a
local firm normally has lower
overheads than a central London
firm. Keeping audit costs down means
more money for the search so even
though the firm haysmacintyre was
possibly highly recommended by the
lawyers, one would have thought that
this decision did not need to be
rushed. Auditing the accounts of a
company like Madeleine's Fund would
not particularly challenge any
qualified person, so there would be
no need to take on a large firm with
special expertise.

Kate does not mention this firm in
the book or the reason why they were
chosen and why so quickly. Many new
companies would not appoint auditors
until later in the financial year
though it is good practice to
appoint at an early stage to have
advice on setting up accounting
systems with proper internal
controls. But two days after
incorporation is fast by any
criteria. If an existing business
decided to change its status to that
of limited company then the
accountants to the unincorporated
business would normally become
auditors to the limited company and
would probably have set it up as
part of their role. But this wasnt
the case here.

The official Madeleine McCann
website says in the section about
the Madeleine Fund:

'The majority of the fund money
has been and continues to be spent
on investigative work to help find
Madeleine. Additionally money
continues to be spent on the wider
awareness campaign  reminding
people that Madeleine is still
missing and to remain vigilant. None
of the directors have taken any
money from the fund as remuneration.

Anyone who wishes further
information with regards to the
financial details of Madeleine's
Fund and its professional advisors
please refer to the accounts filed
at Companies House.'

Kate says of the company on p.138
that 'from the outset everyone
agreed that, despite the costs
involved, it must be run to the
highest standards of transparency.'

Fine words but the reality is
different.

Looking at the information provided
by the audited accounts as the
website advises is interesting, but
frustrating in the case of the years
to March 31 2009, March 31 2010 and
March 31 2011. The first accounts
were made up from incorporation May
15 2007 to March 31 2008 and show an
operating surplus of £1,031,065.

A page of analysis of expenditure
was filed for the accounts to March
2008 which is not a statutory
requirement but is good practice
for such a company which is a 'not
for profit company' according to the
official website
http://www.findmadeleine.com/.

I put the following question to the
Press office at HMRC (Her Majesty
Revenue & Customs)

'Has the term 'not for profit'
any statutory meaning? It seems
to be a catch all phrase used by
organisations that may (or may
not!) have very worthy aims and
objectives.'

And the reply 

'It has no meaning for HMRC,
only charities and CASCs
(Community Amateur Sports Clubs)
benefit from tax beneficial
arrangements.'

So this term 'not for profit' which
is widely used by
companies/organisations that are not
normal trading companies has no
meaning for the UK tax authorities.
While the term is generally used
with no intention to mislead, it
clearly is a term that should not
automatically be taken at
face value.

The additional page of expenditure
information raised more questions
than it answered. I put the
questions and comments below to
auditors haysmacintyre. When I
raised these issues with the
auditors, the March 2011 accounts
were not yet available and hence the
questions only relate to the
accounts for 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Accounts period to March 31,
2008

Campaign Management £123,573

What exactly does this
cover? Does it include, for
example, fees paid for PR
services? If it does, is
this for all PR services or
only those that relate to
promoting the Fund as
opposed to dealing with
media comment critical of
the McCanns?

Legal Fees

A total of £180,321 has been
paid (£111,522 under
Merchandising and Campaign
costs and £68,799 under Fund
legal fees).

The cost of setting up the
limited company (which did
not involve acquiring
charity status) could not
have been more than £5,000
leaving £175,321 spent on
other legal services.

What legal activities did
this expenditure cover?

The Directors' Report is
confusing in regard to legal
fees. It states that the
Fund 'has covered legal fees
associated with Madeleine's
abduction and the search for
her...the Fund has not been
used for any fees relating
to their (Gerry and Kate's)
legal defence.'

Why are there such
apparently large legal fees
associated with Madeleine's
abduction? The only legal
fees relating to this would
be those involved with
having her made a ward of
court but this would not
cost £175,321.

There would have been legal
fees relating to the arguido
status but the Directors'
Report specifically states
it did not pay fees relating
to the McCanns' legal
defence.

Director Brian Kennedy
(uncle of Kate McCann) in an
interview on a video made in
May 2007 and available on
the Internet states that the
Fund money 'can be used for
all sorts of reasons but
probably mainly (will be
used) for legal
expenditure.' This seems to
contradict the Directors'
Report.

Thus there is great public
confusion about the payment
of legal costs which should
be cleared up.

Fund professional
fees £36,070

What exactly does this cover
since legal, audit and
accountancy fees are
separately charged?

Website £37,071

Was a website person
employed all through the
period? This cost seems very
high?

Percentage of money
received spent on search for
Madeleine

It has been stated in the
media, probably
inaccurately, that only 13%
of expenditure for this
period related to searching
for Madeleine. However, it
is not clear what this
percentage actually is
because some of the cost
headings require
clarification, in particular
legal and professional fees.

Accounts year ended
31 March 2009 and 31 March
2010

No Schedule to the
Detailed Accounts was
filed for either year as it
was for the period to 31
March 2008. Why was this?

The contents page of the
accounts filed refers to
Detailed income and
expenditure account and
summaries p.9-10 so
this information is
available but for some
reason, which is not obvious
to me, was not filed.

To file such a schedule is
not a
statutory requirement but is
obviously good
practice. In the
case of this high profile
company that was committed
to 'transparency,' it is odd
to say the least that pages
9 and 10 of the accounts
were not filed when they had
been filed before.

The 2009 and 2010 accounts
give no breakdown of income.
Expenditure is given as
below:

31.3.2010

31.3.2009

Merchandising and
Campaign Costs

421,236

974,786

Administrative Expenses

29,868

30,865

It is impossible to know from
this what percentage of
expenditure went on searching
for Madeleine because there is
no analysis of Merchandising and
Campaign costs. From the
analysis filed relating to 2008,
it is likely that substantial
costs and in particular legal
fees are included here that may
have no direct relationship to
the search for Madeleine.

How do these summarised accounts
provide the transparency
that Mrs McCann wrote about?

The Directors' Report for both
these years states that money
was spent on legal costs for the
McCanns in their action against
Mr Amaral's book which they felt
was libellous. You signed off
the 2010 accounts as auditor on
9 November 2010. In Oct 2010 the
Portuguese Appeal Court upheld
Mr Amaral's appeal  surely this
warranted a note to the accounts
as a post balance sheet event
with financial implications for
the company?

Alternatively, the court ruling
could have been  but wasn't -
mentioned in the Directors'
Report.

The McCanns appealed the October
2010 decision but lost in the
Supreme Court in March 2011.
Surely the substantial money
spent on this case should be
clear in the filed accounts so
that prospective donors can make
informed decisions.

Mr John McCann

Mr John McCann was one of the
first directors and resigned on
23 July 2010. According to media
reports he resigned his fulltime
job very shortly after his niece
disappeared to work full-time
for the Fund. The official
McCann website states that 'none
of the directors have taken any
money from the fund as
remuneration.' Can you confirm
that no salary or fees were paid
to Mr John McCann for the period
he was a director.

Presumably he was paid by a
benefactor whose money did not
go into the Fund?

The auditors passed the questions to
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns official
spokesman. I exchanged emails with him
and finally received the following
email:

I have now been authorised to issue
the following brief statement from
Madeleine's Fund in response to your
approach:

"Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone
Unturned Limited" fulfils all of its
legal requirements through the
filing and public declaration of all
the information that is legally
required of it. It exists to support
the search for Madeleine and remains
entirely dedicated to finding her
through everything that it does,
fully in line with its published
objectives."

I appreciate that this does not
directly address your specific
questions but this is all that the
Fund wishes, or needs, to state at
present. I hope it is helpful
nonetheless.

Kind regards,

Clarence

So I am none the wiser, but more puzzled
as to why the official spokesman is not
facilitating what his clients claim they
want  the highest standards of
transparency.'

In fact the official statement 'covers'
three additional questions I put
directly to Mr Mitchell.

1) Why does the
official Madeleine website not
provide actual and up-to-date
financial information re the
Fund - ie income analysis and
details of expenditure?

2) Is all book
income going to the Fund? The
book cover says 'all royalties
to the Madeleine's Fund'.
Royalties are only paid after an
advance is cleared. Will/has the
book advance been paid to the
Fund?

3) The official website states
that 'an experienced Fund
Administrator has been appointed
to ensure the highest standards
of transparency and
accountability'. What is the
name of the Fund Administrator
and when and how was he/she
recruited - was the job
advertised?

Mr Mitchell referred me to Alison Barrow, at
Transworld regarding the question about
whether all book income is going to the
Fund. I emailed her this question and also
asked about sales to date in England and
Ireland  but I only received a read
receipt, and no subsequent reply.

I was surprised that Clarence Mitchell
referred me to the publishers Transworld.
Their obligation is to pay the contractual
advance to their author. It is not their
concern where the cheque ultimately ends up,
and nor would they normally know.

I also addressed the questions below to BWB:

1. Did the
McCanns approach you directly
about setting up the company or
was the approach made by the
IFLG (International Family Law
Group) or by some other
intermediary?

2. On what date were you
contacted and asked to set up
the company?

3. In drafting the documents and
getting agreement thereto, did
you deal with the McCanns in
Portugal (by email and
telephone) or did you deal with
an intermediary in the UK such
as the IFLG?

4. Did you act pro bono or at a
reduced fee given the
circumstances of this case?

5. When the Charity Commission
told you that charity status
would not be an option as the
draft Articles of Association
related to one child rather than
to missing children generally,
did you suggest to your clients
that they might consider a
compromise so that charity
status might be obtained?

It appears to me that charity
status would have helped the
company both in the short and
medium term, and that with
compromise and the expertise of
your company, it could have been
obtained by amending the draft
Articles of Association so that
while the main thrust of the
work involved searching for
Madeleine, some resources would
be devoted to other missing
children cases.

Your clients clearly wanted the
company set up quickly but I
have never understood why speed
outweighed the issue of charity
status which would have been
hugely beneficial to the
company.

6. In general, when there are no
disputed issues with the Charity
Commission, how long does it
take to achieve charity status
after a company has been
incorporated?

The FOI documents subsequently supplied
by the Charity Commission partly
answered these questions. As Kate has
not said in the book or elsewhere that
BWB acted pro bono or for a reduced fee,
it is reasonable to assume they charged
a commercial fee for the work they did
under huge time pressure - a fee paid
for by the many people who sent in money
to help find Madeleine.

BWB sent me a brief emailed letter from
partner Rosamund McCarthy on July 18
2011 referring me to Clarence Mitchell
and saying that BWB 'no longer acts for
the company.' However, a Current
Appointments Report obtained from
Company House on July 20, 2011 gave BWB
Secretarial Ltd (the company secretarial
wing of BWB) as the company secretary of
the Fund. I asked Company House to
clarify whether this was accurate in
case a recent resignation had not been
reflected in the Report  but was
informed the Report was correct. I then
raised this inconsistency with Ms
McCarthy by email; I received a read
receipt but no actual reply.

BWB are but one of a number of UK legal
firms who have acted for the McCanns in
the past four years, as the attached
table shows. Limited company accounts
normally contain a page of company
information listing the company
solicitors, bankers etc. For each of the
four years for which accounts are
available two firms of solicitors are
listed. BWB are listed for each year
including 2011 so presumably the date
they parted company with the McCanns was
after March 2011.

In the accounts for the period 15 May
2007 to 31 March 2008 the second named
firm is Hayes Percival. This is a large
firm with offices in 6 UK centres, but
this firm is not mentioned in the book
and it is unclear what legal services
they provided. The accounts to March
2009, March 2010 and March 2011 name
Stephenson Harwood, a large
international firm with 100 partners, in
addition to BWB. Other legal firms
retained by the McCanns include Carter-Ruck,
specialists in libel law and criminal
law firm Kingsley Napley. Then there are
the Portuguese lawyers.

How many other parents of missing
children have needed so many lawyers?

The first lawyers retained were the IFLG
and Kate has explained she met them as
there was a connection with a colleague
of Gerry's. But it's odd that they were
retained given their expertise is in the
area of family abductions resulting from
marriage breakdown, a tricky area
involving knowledge of family law in
different countries. Madeleine's
disappearance clearly wasnt the result
of a family abduction. If there was an
abduction, then it was a straight
forward criminal abduction with no legal
issues once the police located the
kidnapper. So why were the IFLG
retained? According to the official
website printout on May 17 2007, postal
donations were to be sent c/o IFLG at
their central London office.

Returning to the speed of setting up the
company  while it is clear from the
independent evidence of the Charity
Commission that the process was started
on May 14 and incorporation took place
on May 15  this was not the usual time
span for a company being set up from
scratch to the client's
specification.

I contacted the Charities Section of BWB
by email posing as a voluntary
organisation that might need to
incorporate quickly in connection with
funding that would be dependent on
incorporation, and which also needed
charity status. I was quoted a fee of
£3,500  £5,000 and after an exchange of
emails to tease out what was required,
BWB agreed that while a timeline for
speedy incorporation of Monday am
(instructions taken) to Thursday
(incorporation day) was possible, it
would be better to allow a week.

Why did BWB agree to rush incorporation
the way they did, given that a couple of
days extra would not have in any way
hampered the search for Madeleine? At
that stage, the child could have been
found at any time, dead or alive.
Obviously their clients, the McCanns,
instructed them to incorporate on May 15
because getting charity status was less
important than not having to change the
date of a press launch.

In the questions to the auditors I asked
about the lack of expenditure detail
after March 2008. There used to be
information on donations in the early
days of the official website. Now there
is no financial information at all. Why
not put up the audited accounts on the
website? Is referring people to
Companies House the transparency that
Kate pledged?

I noted that the accounts were always
lodged close to the filing deadline. Why
not file the accounts as soon after the
balance sheet date as practical? Good
practice demands early filing before the
information becomes to some extent
irrelevant. The Fund's accounts were
filed as below:

Accounts year ending

Date approved by Board

Latest date for filing to avoid
fines

Company office date stamp on
filed accounts

No of days before fines would
have applied

31.03.2008

12.11.2008

31.01.2009

23.01.2009

8

31.03.2009

06.01.2010

31.01.2010

27.01.2010

4

31.03.2010

09.11.2010

31.01.2011

14.12.2010

48

31.03.2011

22.12.2011

31.12.2011

30.12.2011

1

Note: The statutory filing
date was 10 months after the accounting year
end but was changed to 9 months for 2011 and
subsequent years.

Why was the equivalent expenditure schedule,
filed relating to March 2008, not filed for
March 2009, March 2010 and March 2011?

Clearly the directors decided to discontinue
providing an analysis of expenditure in the
filed accounts and instructed the auditors
accordingly. A possible reason for the
Board's decision is the public criticism
that only 13% of expenditure appeared to go
on searching for Madeleine in that year.
That percentage may well have been
inaccurate either way because the detail
published in the filed accounts for 2008 in
itself raised issues requiring further
clarification. I could not get any
clarification from the auditors or Clarence
Mitchell so cannot throw any light on the
accuracy or otherwise of the 13%.

It is quite reasonable that an ordinary
trading company would not reveal more
information than legally required in its
filed accounts because some information
could be commercially sensitive and of use
to a trade competitor. However, this
argument would not apply to a company such
as Madeleine's Fund where it would be to its
advantage for the public to see where the
money was going. But apart from 2008, the
only information available on its income and
expenditure from the filed Accounts is as
below:

Extract from audited Fund
Accounts

Mar-11

Mar-10

Mar-09

Mar-08

Income

177,534

233,099

629,181

1,846,178

Interest receivable

101

373

21,585

33,424

177,635

233,472

650,766

1,879,602

Expenditure

Merchandising and campaign costs

487,193

421,236

974,786

673,366

Administration expenses

26,930

29,868

30,865

141,747

514,123

451,104

1,005,651

815,113

(Deficit)/Surplus for the year

(336,488)

(217,632)

(354,885)

1,064,489

Audit*

6,300

6,169

5,750

13,366

* Company law dictates
that the audit fee must be disclosed in
a note to the accounts
Another question I could not answer is
the name of the 'experienced Fund
Administrator appointed to ensure the
highest standard of transparency and
accountability' to quote the website.
Clarence Mitchell would not disclose it,
or rather it would appear his clients
the McCanns, would not let him disclose
it when I asked. It is common for
company websites (whether normal trading
companies or NGOs and charities) to give
at least the name of their most senior
person and his/her email address.

If the company had achieved charity
status, the name of this person would
have had to be revealed in the Annual
Report that must be submitted to the
Charity Commission. Reporting
requirements for charities involve
naming the CEO or other senior staff
members to whom the day to day staff
management is delegated by the trustees
(directors).

And, as a charity, the accounts would
have to be available to the public on
request. As an ordinary limited company,
a member of the public must know how to
access the accounts at Company House and
pay a small fee to obtain them.

Was Mr John McCann the Fund
Administrator until he resigned from the
Board in July 2010?

Both the Times (22.5.2007) and the
Guardian (20.9.2007) reported that he
was on indefinite leave of absence from
his job as a medical representative with
AstraZeneca. Other papers stated that he
had actually resigned his job to look
for his niece. The Guardian article said
he had taken the leave 'to administrate
the £1million fund.'

The official website states that 'none
of the directors have taken any money
from the fund as remuneration.'

But does that just mean money as payment
for their work as directors specifically
 or does it refer to all work they may
have done for the Fund and for any
services they provided which are
unrelated to being a director?

If John McCann was the Fund
Administrator or whether he fulfilled
some other role for the Fund and did not
receive payment from the Fund for his
work, how did he meet his financial
commitments? He returned to his company
in the summer of 2010 after a three year
break. It is unlikely that his company
would have paid him while he was on this
three year break. In general, career
breaks for whatever reason, are not
paid. According to his LinkedIn page Mr
McCann left AstraZeneca in May 2011 for
a position with Bayer.

The accounts for the year to March 2010
reveal in note 2 on p.8 that 'there were
no employees in the year (2009 - none)'.
This seems to contradict the statement
in the Directors' Report for both 2009
and 2010 that the Fund 'provided some
administrative support to Madeleine's
family in maintaining the impetus of the
investigation'. The March 2011 accounts
do not have this note so we don't know
if there were any employees or not in
this year  though it appears from the
Directors' Report that there was an
employee because the Report states that
the Fund has 'provided part-time
administrative support to aid the
investigation and campaign to find
Madeleine (campaign co-ordinator and
media liaison).'

'Curiouser and curiouser,' to quote from
Alice in Wonderland.

The first year's accounts, where
expenditure detail was filed, do not
mention salaries; so it would appear
there was no Fund Administrator or other
employee unless he/she was paid by a
benefactor outside of the Fund. However,
there would be no reason to do this
because this was the year with the
biggest income, and the website had been
(and still is) specific about hiring
this most necessary employee.

And wasn't the whole point of using
a company to have a formal structure
through which all income and expenditure
went?

Another indication that there were no
employees is the apparent lack of an
office. The company information given in
the audited accounts gives the
registered address as 2-6 Cannon Street,
London EC4, which is the address of
solicitors BWB. There is only a PO Box
address in Leicester on the official
website. In the 2008 accounts, where
detail was provided, there is no item
rent or rates under Administrative
Expenses. For the subsequent years, as
no expenditure breakdown is given we
cannot know for sure, but as the note in
the 2010 account states there were no
employees for 2009 or 2010, there was no
need of an office. If there was no
office with the related costs of rates,
heat and light, this raises the question
as to what is included under
Administrative Expenses in 2009, 2010
and 2011 other than the audit fee which
we know as it has to be disclosed by
law.

(£) 2011

(£) 2010

(£) 2009

Administrative expenses per
audited accounts

26,930

29,868

30,865

Less: Audit included therein

6,300

6,169

5,750

Giving other administrative
costs

20,630

23,699

25,115

Could these 'other administrative costs'
all relate to costs incurred by Kate
McCann for using a room in her house for
her work for the Fund. Clearly she would
have costs like telephone, printer
cartridges, postage, stationery and
heating the room but these would hardly
come to more than £20,000 pa? She might
have to pay rates for the partial
'business use' of her house but even so,
its hard to see how the administrative
costs are so high in the context of this
organisation. Costs relating to
dispatching merchandise and campaign
material would presumably be charged
under Merchandising and Campaign costs
and not under Administrative Expenses.

None of the four sets of accounts filed
include any fixed assets. If there was
an employee you would expect basic
equipment for him or her: a desk and
chair, a PC and printer and a filing
cabinet.

Note 3 in the accounts for 2008 and 2009
shows a prepayment of £19,795 at both
March 31 2008 and at March 31, 2009. Now
prepayments normally relate to costs
which have to be paid in advance like
insurance, subscriptions or rent and
rates. Most costs are paid when or after
the goods or services are received. Now
as it appears from earlier parts of this
article that the Fund had no employees
and no office, then employers' liability
insurance, rent and rates would not
apply. There could have been prepayments
on a media monitoring subscription and
possibly on a travel insurance policy
relating to the directors who might be
travelling abroad in connection with the
search. However, any prepayments on such
a subscription or on travel insurance
could not possible equal almost £20,000!

For what could the Fund have paid such a
substantial amount in advance? The major
costs itemised in the 2008 accounts were
legal fees and search fees. Could any of
the companies involved have demanded
significant money upfront as the audited
accounts indicate? The Board would have
had to agree to this. It is unwise to
say the least to pay any company in
advance for goods and services not
received  unless there is a very good
reason for doing so, perhaps because it
is the only way to retain the services
of a company essential to the aims of
the organisation.

Examination of the accounts for the year
ended 31 March 2011 lodged on December
30 2011, a day before the deadline for
filing, throws up the question 'what
happened to the advance for the book
Madeleine which would have been
paid in late 2010?'

The huge (unquantified) advance reported
in the media in October 2010 does not
appear to be in the accounts. If it was,
it would either be included in the
income figure in the Income and
Expenditure Account or shown on the
Balance Sheet with an accounting note to
explain the payment had been received in
the year and would be included in the
Income and Expenditure Account for the
year ending March 2012, the year in
which the book was published. There is
no balance sheet entry or note.

Could it be in the Income figure?

Unlikely as the accounts show total
income of only £177,534 and no breakdown
thereof. In this accounting year (year
to March 2011) the official McCann
website refers to four official
fundraising events, three 'Bags of Hope'
events - in the National Space Centre
Leicester, in the Crypt in the Liverpool
Metropolitan Cathedral and in the Crowne
Plaza Hotel Glasgow - and an 81 mile
sponsored cycle ride undertaken by
Gerry, the Etape Caledonia, in Scotland.
In addition to these official
fundraisers there would presumably have
been fundraising income from supporters
around the country and profits from the
sale of merchandise. Usually 'good
causes' will indicate on their website
or in their Annual Report or other
publications how successful a
fundraising event was. It might give the
specific sum raised or alternatively
indicate the kind of amount raised. The
McCanns' website only gives basic
information on the events held including
where they were held. There is no
mention of the amounts raised; the only
comment is that the events were 'very
positive.'

The Bags of Hope events featured an
auction of donated bags, some from some
very high profile celebrities. The
Loughborough Echo (11.3.2011) said the
three events hoped to raise 'tens of
thousands of pounds.' Attendees,
according to the News of the World
(6.3.2011), paid £50 per head to attend.
The venues used had substantial
capacity. Kylie Minogue, Coleen Rooney,
Fearne Cotton, Carol Vorderman, Chris
Tarrant and Lorraine Kelly were among
the celebrities who donated bags. Given
the celebrities involved and the
professional team behind the McCanns
these events must have raised tens of
thousands of pounds as the organisers
hoped.

If the advance money is included in the
income figure in the Income and
Expenditure Account it must have been
less than £100,000. Even allowing for
media exaggeration about the advance, it
is not credible that the Christopher
Little Literary Agency who acted for
Kate McCann would have accepted such an
advance for a book that had such huge
sales potential. This long established
agency until recently acted for J K
Rowling.

The other possible explanation, that
there was no advance paid on signing the
contract as is usual, is not credible
either. No literary agent with a client
with a 'hot' book would permit that.

So the likely explanation is that the
advance was not paid into the Fund.

Its whereabouts is a mystery to me.

HMRC confirmed to me that there is no
special income tax treatment for the
income from writing a book, as for
example there used to be in Ireland for
certain writers and artists. Thus
assuming the contract for the book was
between Kate McCann and the publishers,
then the money she received under that
contract would be subject to income tax
at current rates. The rates for the UK
tax year 2010/2011 in which the initial
advance on signing the contract would
appear to have been received were :
basic rate 20% applying to taxable
income from zero to £37,400, higher rate
40% applying to taxable income from
£37,401 - £150,000 and additional rate
50% on taxable income over £150,000.
These income tax rates would take a
sizable chunk of the advance, especially
given that Dr Gerry McCann has a salary
as a fulltime medical consultant and
Kate's book earnings would attract
income tax at 40% and 50%. Kate would
need to file a tax return for 2010/2011
disclosing her book earnings (and any
other earnings she might have had in
that year) by 31 October 2011 if filing
by hard copy, or by 31 January 2012 if
filing online.

In addition to paying income tax on the
book earnings Kate would have to pay
commission to her literary agent. Her
agent's website states that the agency's
commission charge is 15%. Of course, a
lower figure could have been negotiated
as the book was to raise money for the
search for Madeleine.

If the book contract was between the
publishers and the Fund, then the
advance clearly should be in the Fund
accounts for the year to March 2011.

When I looked at the audited accounts to
see what they said about taxation I
found a note 1.3 Taxation
as part of the Notes to the Financial
Statements in accounts 2008, 2009 and
2010 which read:

'The company remains accountable for
taxation liabilities arising from
capital gains, interest, trading
activities and any other surplus
other than from donations received'
(my italics).

In the accounts to 31 March 2008, there
is a surplus of £1,064,489 before
taxation but the corporation tax payable
per the accounts is only £12,462. This
is because most of the income for that
period was from donations . According to
the detailed schedule filed for this
period - £1,390,360 donations were
received through the bank and £391,740
donations were received via the website.

There is no note about taxation in the
2011 accounts, and I cannot understand
why it has been removed. The taxation
charge in the 2011 accounts is £8,371.

Another question I have about
corporation tax arises from the 2010
accounts. The charge for corporation tax
for the year in the Income and
Expenditure Account is £2,598 but the
figure for the corporation tax due in
the analysis of creditors per the
balance sheet (note 4) gives the
corporation tax creditor as £4,666
rather than £2,598. However Note 3 which
analyses the debtors figure on the
balance sheet includes £2,068
'corporation tax debtor.' Deduct the
corporation tax creditor from the
corporation tax debtor and you have the
corporation tax charge in the Income and
Expenditure Account. The likely
explanation of this is that the
corporation tax debtor relates to a
S.419 charge (ICTA 1988) on a director's
loan not repaid within the prescribed
time limits. In summary, where a
director of a limited company takes a
loan from the company and does not repay
it within nine months of the end of the
accounting period in which the loan was
taken, a charge of 25% of the loan is
payable to HMRC. This charge can be
reclaimed when the director's loan is
repaid. Thus it would appear that a
director of the Fund took a loan of
£8,272 from the company. Review of the
2011 accounts indicates that the
director's loan had been repaid and that
HMRC had repaid the £2,068 (25% x
£8,272) to the company. For more
information on S.419 see
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/
Corporation tax home page  'Directors
Loan Accounts and Corporation Tax
explained.'

If there was a director's loan taken
from the Fund, and obviously it would
have been approved by the Board, it
would be interesting to know the
rationale for approving it because
money, albeit temporarily, borrowed from
the Fund reduces the funds available to
search for Madeleine.

However, if there was a director's loan
this would have to be included on the
balance sheet as a debit, or the
accounts wouldn't balance! Looking at
the years involved, the balance sheets
record 2008  debtors total £585,369,
2009 debtors total £19,795 and 2010 
debtors total £3,718. In the notes to
the accounts these totals are analysed
except in the case of 2010. From the
analysis the only place the 'loan' could
be included is in the 'prepayments'
£19,795 which has been queried earlier
in this article. A director's loan is
not a 'prepayment' but possibly has been
misanalysed under this heading. If there
was no director's loan then the
corporation tax charge in 2010 is indeed
a mystery.

As well as the taxation note changing, I
see a change in Note 1.2 Income.
The 2008, 2009 and 2010 accounts all
state 

'Income comprises donations received by
the company along with revenue
recognised in respect of merchandise
supplied, exclusive of VAT.'

But in the 2011 accounts the heading
Income changes to
Turnover and the note
reads 

'Turnover comprises revenue recognised
by the company in respect of goods and
services supplied by the company,
exclusive of Value Added Tax and trade
discounts.'

Why has the word donations
been deleted?

The website seeks donations and in
interviews the McCanns always stress the
need for money to continue their search.
While donations to the Fund have
obviously declined and the Directors'
Report states this, there must have been
some donations including money from
small fund raising events held by the
many supporters of the McCann family
around the country.

Back to the 'missing' advance.

Of course you could argue that the book
cover's promise of 'all royalties to the
Fund' did not include the advance
because this is a separate part of the
payment for the book. However an advance
is surely 'advance royalties' and should
have been lodged to the Fund's bank
account. It is pure semantics to argue
that the advance is separate to the
royalties, which would not be paid until
after the book had been published and
after the advance had been cleared by
sales.

All the above makes me sceptical about
Madeleine's Fund. Even the name is
misleading because the usual connotation
of Fund is that some charitable purpose
is involved. The Fund or should I say
the limited company is merely an
ordinary private company filing the
minimum accounting details to comply
with the law, and filing close to the
latest legal filing date.

The official website states that the
Fund does not have charity status.
Despite that, there is great public
confusion as to the status of the Fund,
which has not been helped by
consistently sloppy journalism. As
mentioned, the term 'not for profit'
which is used by the company has no
meaning to the HMRC, and given the lack
of financial information, it is
impossible to say whether the Fund would
meet a reasonable person's
interpretation of that term.

In the accounting year to March 31 2011,
the McCanns lost two appeals in their
case against Sr Amaral for his book 'The
Truth of the Lie.' The Directors' Report
does not mention this though it has
financial implications for the company.
In both the 2009 and 2010 Directors'
Reports reference was made to paying for
legal representation for the family in
Portugal in connection with the Amaral
case. Thus, it is reasonable to assume
that these Portuguese legal costs were
met in the year to March 2011 and will
be met in the future. A further appeal
by the McCanns is set for April 2012.
Surely some mention of these ongoing
legal costs should have been made in
these accounts?

My final comment on the accounts is that
the accounts for the year to 31 March
2009 have not been properly checked by
the Board and by the auditors.

There was a DEFICIT for the year of
£354,885.

Yet



The auditors report (p.5) refers
to the SURPLUS for the year



The Income and Expenditure
Account (p.6) consistently uses
the word SURPLUS when the
correct word is DEFICIT



In note 2 on p.8 the heading
should be Operating Deficit and
not Surplus and the text should
use deficit and not surplus



In note 3 on p.8 the comparative
year should read 2008 and not
2009

Director Brian Kennedy (Kate's uncle)
approved these accounts on behalf of the
Board on 6.1.2010 and signed them on
p.7. The auditors then filed these
accounts at Companies House.

On July 14 2011 I emailed the Find
Madeleine campaign (using another name)
suggesting that financial information
including the audited accounts be put on
the website. I also referred to
difficulties ordering a holiday pack. On
July 18 I received an email from 'Karen'
telling me the accounts were available
in Companies House and that she would
pass my suggestion 'on to the team and
see what they think.' She said there had
been difficulties with the online
ordering store and I could order via the
general email while the problem was
being solved. There was no follow up
email telling me what the team thought
of my suggestion and no change in the
lack of financial information on the
website!

After reviewing the background to the
setting up of the Fund and its published
accounts, and getting such information
from independent sources as was
available, as a chartered accountant who
has also worked both in a paid and
voluntary capacity for charities and for
'not for profit' organisations, I am
unable to understand why in the context
of a missing child -



the Fund (limited company)
was set up only days after
Madeleine vanished



the accounts, apart from
2008, are so uninformative



what has happened to the
advance for the book
Madeleine which does not
appear to have been put into
the Fund as people expected



whether the Fund ever had
any paid staff and in
particular whether there
ever was a Fund
Administrator as the
official Madeleine website
states



the reluctance to provide
meaningful financial
information



the need for so many
professional advisors,
mainly lawyers and whether
their fees were paid fully
or in part from the Fund



why the issue of charity
status has apparently not
been revisited given the
obvious benefits to the
search for Madeleine

People everywhere have been touched
by the story of this missing child.
Many have sent in money they could
perhaps ill afford. These people
deserve to be treated with respect;
and that means publishing detailed
and up-to-date information as to
what the money has been spent on.

Respect also means answering
reasonable questions from the press
or from the general public. My
observations are based on the
evidence available and my
professional experience. If some
observations are a little wide of
the mark it is due to the lack of
transparency I have experienced.
Some genuine transparency from the
McCanns and their advisors would
hopefully sort out my concerns.

I quote again what Kate says in her
book on p.138:

'From the outset, everyone
agreed that, despite the costs
involved, it (the Fund) must be run
to the highest standards of
transparency.'

You would think that with the PR
expertise at the McCanns' disposal,
this would be the case.

In November 2010 she published
Cancer in a Cold Climate: the
Shafting of St Luke's Hospital,
an examination of the real reasons
for the then Irish government's
attempt to close a hospital that was
(and still is) a national
institution.

The McCann professional advisors
needed in the search for Madeleine, 22
February 2012

THE MCCANN PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS
NEEDED IN
THE SEARCH FOR MADELEINE

Lawyers - UK

Name of firm

Location

Staff involved

Areas of expertise

Work done

Bates Wells & Braithwaite

London EC4

Rosamund McCarthy, Tom
Pratt, Company Secretarial
Department staff

Department for Charities and
NGOs

Set up company, Obtain
trademark, ongoing company
secretarial work

International Family Law
Group

London WC2

Ann Thomas, David Hodson,
unnamed paralegal  probably
Richard Jones

Family law especially re
international abductions

Convinced McCanns of need to
set up limited company,
assisted in its formation.
Initially cheques sent c/o
their office.

Michael Nicholls QC

London EC4

n/a

Family law

Advised on 'reasonable
parenting', limited company

Geoffrey Robinson QC

London WC1

n/a

Human rights lawyer

Declaration re EU child
rescue alert

Timothy Scott QC

London WC1

n/a

Family law

Advised McCanns in 2008

Kingsley Napley

EC1

Michael Caplan, Angus
McBride

Criminal lawyers

Advice on arguido status

Howes Percival

Milton Keynes

Unclear

Commercial law firm  6
offices

Unclear

Stephenson Harwood

London EC4

Unclear

International firm

Unclear

Carter-Ruck

London EC4

Isobel Hudson, Adam Tudor

Media law

A number of libel actions re
UK media, Sr. Amaral and now
Pat Brown

Edward Smethurst

Commercial lawyer acting for
businessman Brian Kennedy

Made director of Madeleine's
Fund. Co-odinator of McCann
legal teams

Lawyers - Portugal

Lawyer

Background

Services

Carlos Pinto de Arbreu

Human rights lawyer
recommended to them and
described as 'our criminal
lawyer' p.271

Acted for Gerry

Rogerio Alves

President of the Portuguese
bar and suggested by Brian
Kennedy to provide
additional legal support in
Portugal

Acted for Kate

Isabel Duarte

Libel lawyer

Sued Sr Amaral

PR Consultants

Name

Sheree Dodd

Foreign office arranged for
this independent PR
consultant to come in PDL on
May 16, 2007

Justine McGuinness

From June 22 2007 to mid
Sept 2007

Alex Woolfall

Mark Warner Group

Hanover

Crisis Management Sept-Nov
2007

Per Daily Star 6/12/07
charged £30,000 for 2 months
work, one third of normal
fee

Clarence Mitchell

Started May 23, 2007 for 3
weeks. Returned later and
still spokesman

Apparently paid by Brian
Kennedy

The above lists do not necessarily
include all the professionals
engaged by the McCanns in the
'search' for Madeleine.